Isolationisim of the U.S.

[Rando]

After Tuesday's attacks, several people have said that if the U.S. would mind it's own buisness in international affairs, then this would not have happened.

Let me remind you that it is isolationisim on the parts of more powerful countries such as Great Brittan and the U.S. that lets tragedys such as Germany's "Final Soulution" and the mass executions of the Khmer Rouge happen.

In both cases, the western world knew of the horrors, or in the case of Cambodia, knew something was going on when they went in to total isolation, but decided to "mind it's own buisness".

People cry because the richer nations do nothing to help the poorer nations.

People cry because we do.

 

[Griffith_se]

Right, its a loose loose situation.
Damned if we do damned if we don't.

 

[terzarima]

But if we have helped and not indulged ourselves, we have helped ourselves develop.

If the world was nothing but a mass of politics Isolationism would be the answer. But face it, its not.

 

[arhar]

Originally posted by Rando
... powerful countries such as Great Brittan ....

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry, just couldn't resist, it's just too funny.

Anyway, seriously though, I don't think it's the solution. Remember all these times when USA stayed out of certain places, and the same people that always bitch about USA interfering in other countries' affairs bitched about USA not doing anything about it.

 

[Multani]

I just have to chime in on this.
The reason why people want the U.S. to go isolationist is not because they don't appreciate the fact that the U.S. does help provide hunger relief, food supplies..etc.
The reason why people is because of Panama, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, and to a certain extent, Iraq.
If the U.S. only provided diasaster relief, food supplies..etc, then I'm all for the U.S. interevening.
Unfortunately, the interfereing that's really going on is the U.S. taking sides, and helping only it's allies.
Let's face it. The U.S. is trying promote national interest, and expand political influence over the world, just like every other country is doing or wants to do. Unfortunately, lately, the U.S. is acting more like a bully than a police officer. It basically does what it wants, despite the image the media projects on the U.S. as a country that follows all the rules.

 

[Spiderman]

I agree with your assessment (except the "bully" part ), but I think the world and attitudes have changed in the situations you mention.

Panama: We helped prop up Noriega because we needed influence. When it was more "recognized" that drugs were bad, we got him. Pretty much the same goes for a lot of the right-wing death squads in South America that had been US trained in the 60-70s(?)

Vietnam: One of the biggies. That was a result of containment. I'm pretty sure the South Vietnamese wanted us there (at least initially) so I'm not sure this can be included.

Yugoslavia: A case of genocide, if I ever heard about one. Just disgusting... aside from worries that it could spread and start WWIII at the worst, a massive Balkan War at the least, this just had to be stopped. Sorry.

Iraq: Initially a case of a nation preying on a smaller (and presumably weaker) one. Did Kuwait ask for our help in that one?
Not sure about the no-fly zone now. Supposed to be protecting the Kurds which is problamatic.

 

[Baskil]

Originally posted by Rando
After Tuesday's attacks, several people have said that if the U.S. would mind it's own buisness in international affairs, then this would not have happened.

Let me remind you that it is isolationisim on the parts of more powerful countries such as Great Brittan and the U.S. that lets tragedys such as Germany's "Final Soulution" and the mass executions of the Khmer Rouge happen.

In both cases, the western world knew of the horrors, or in the case of Cambodia, knew something was going on when they went in to total isolation, but decided to "mind it's own buisness".

Add the Rwandan massacres to that list as well.

It's not a matter of where we get involved, but HOW we get involved. If we were less ready to bring in the guns and sanctions, and more ready to bring in supplies and diplomacy, we wouldn't have this sentiment.

As far as some examples go, Vietnam was our own fault. We could have won that war with half the manpower and a fraction of the time. If we had hit N Vietmenese millitary targets in greater force, the Veitcong would have had their funding slowly cut off. We would have been out of there in a year and there would still be two countries there.

Iraq. I can't say that this conflict wasn't a result of our past meddling either. During the Iraq/Iran war, we supplied the Iraqies. We turned them into what they were 11 years ago. I imagine if we had taken out the regime, and helped diplomatically to set up a democratic goverment, and aided with supplies... We probably would be paying less in gas right now and our image would be better.

However, the idea of lessening our millitary presence does not apply to this. I believe this is all about getting our millitary involved.

 

[Spiderman]

We could have won that war with half the manpower and a fraction of the time. If we had hit N Vietmenese millitary targets in greater force, the Veitcong would have had their funding slowly cut off. We would have been out of there in a year and there would still be two countries there.

Wasn't there the fear of China getting involved again?